Federal Judge Issues Permanent Injunction Against Riverside, CA County Sheriff CCW Denials

Second Amendment Foundation Defense Distributed

Courtesy SAF

FED. JUDGE PERMANENTLY ENJOINS RIVERSIDE COUNTY’S CCW APPLICATION DENIALS

BELLEVUE, WA – A senior U.S. District Court judge in California has issued a permanent injunction against the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department’s longstanding policy of “dissuading, discouraging, and preventing non-United States citizens from applying for a CCW license,” in a lawsuit brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

SAF, Calguns and FPC were joined by the Firearms Policy Foundation and Madison Society Foundation, and Arie Van Nieuwenhuyzen, a permanent resident alien who has lived in Riverside since 1983 and is a business owner there.

The case is known as Van Nieuwenhuyzen, et al. v. Riverside, CA Sheriff Stanley Sniff, et al.

Senior United States District Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered the order permanently enjoining Riverside County from having a policy and practice that prevented legal U.S. residents from exercising their right to apply for a carry license.

“We’re delighted with the outcome of this case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This isn’t our first experience with such a policy, and we’re happy to have had good partners in this challenge. Mr. Van Nieuwenhuyzen has been a productive, law-abiding member of his community for decades, and there is no good reason to discourage or deny someone of his background and standing the ability to apply for a carry license.”

“This coalition victory is important,” added Brandon Combs of the Firearms Policy Coalition, “because it not only helps to restore access to the fundamental right to bear arms, it also sends a crystal-clear message to carry licensing authorities that the rights of the people can and will be enforced in our courts. Anyone who stands between the People and their rights is on notice.”

The policy was carried out under former Sheriff Stanley Sniff, who lost to current Sheriff Chad Bianco in the last election. Sheriff Bianco campaigned on a promise to promote access to concealed carry licenses and reform earlier policies. Under terms of the permanent injunction, the Riverside Sheriff’s Department have 30 days to finalize all changes to their CCW policy and eliminate “any and all U.S. Citizenship requirements” from the department website that describe the application process, and from CCW application forms.

“This is just one more example of winning back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time,” Gottlieb said.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

comments

  1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    Just wondering….is the man, Van, applying for citizenship?

    1. avatar kevin says:

      It doesn’t matter. You get the benefit of the Constitution (the entire constitution) even if you’re not a citizen.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I’ve had this conversation with a number of folks over the years. If you’re in the country legally you most likely have the legal right to purchase a firearm. The last time was with a co-worker before my retirement. He was from afghanistan. After our talk he got in touch with the .gov and found out that he could buy that gun for his house he wanted.

        1. avatar Nanashi says:

          And if they somehow don’t (most likely a student visa), a hunting license from any of the 50 states will allow them to. They don’t have to ever hunt or ever step foot in the state they get the license from.

        2. avatar Joelt1 says:

          I work Ft. Worth and this gun store clerk told me that one of his customers is a foreign military officer living in Texas, providing long term oversight on some expensive military hardware his government ordered.

          IIRC, he said that officer came in and bought a Tavor, and sent pictures of it back to his friends and family in Europe who aren’t allowed to own it. I think he was from Norway..?

      2. avatar LL says:

        Except the right to vote. I’m a LEGAL Permanent Resident Alien and I have my CPL/CCW

        1. avatar OBOB says:

          WELL?

          step the f-up and do the rest!

          OR

          stop your bitching and whining like a baby!

        2. avatar LL says:

          I’m not whining who ever the hell you think you are. I’m in the process you idiot. I simply chimed in because you obviously don’t know American law yourself you presumptive S.O.B.! Piss off, you’re no Patriot, I AM!

        3. avatar George from Alaska says:

          OBOB…. exactly what the Fuck you are talking about?? Are you on drugs ass-wipe?
          There was no whining about anything and step the fuck up to what???
          Get off our page moron…. people like you diminish our cause.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        Perhaps in the looney progressive world of the marxist left. In reality you get the Dec of Independence. The Constitution is for citizens, even looney marxist progtards.

        You want rights? Go back to your 3rd (or 1st) world cesspool. GTFO

        1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          That’s a rude thing to say to someone who is obeying the law and not harming anyone else.

        2. avatar AAR says:

          Funny how the word “Citizen” is no where in the constitution. It talks of the rights of the people.

        3. avatar George from Alaska says:

          Knock it off Neiowa. You are the type of person the antis point to.
          You get out before someone has a chat with your.
          By the way, thanks for your ISP and DNS numbers.

    2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      If it was up to me there would be no gun laws and everyone could have them.

  2. avatar American Patriot says:

    I’m against this one, if he is not been Granted Citizenship by the Federal Govt I don’t believe he should be granted the rights of American citizens under the Constutition.

    1. avatar kevin says:

      Would you also deny him the right to free speech? Religion? Unreasonable search and seizure? Any other fundamental rights?

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Kev? “American Patriot” there is another scum-sucking Leftist troll…

        1. avatar American Patriot says:

          You sound just like pelsoi & schummer “Swamp Scum”

      2. avatar Ransom says:

        Good Effing answer Kevin.

      3. avatar American Patriot says:

        So your saying the 1000’s jumping the So. borders have the same rights as a citizen.
        Do you think A resident alien is a citizen……Think again!

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Do you think a lawful permanent resident is an illegal alien?

        2. avatar American Patriot says:

          It said Alien resident, that is not a citizen! So he still does not have all the rights.

        3. avatar Nickel Plated says:

          Yes they do. That’s why we dont just run them down in the streets and shoot em. They may not have the same privileges of a citizen. But they do have the same rights.

        4. avatar Ing says:

          Border jumpers are here illegally. Permanent residents, aka resident aliens, are here legally. Big difference.

        5. avatar Pax Rock says:

          They’re speaking of legal aliens, not illegal aliens. All you need to do is look at questions 12 and 13 of the ATF’s Firearms Transaction Record to see that it’s legal for foreigners here legally to purchase a firearm if they have the proper documentation.

          Read every once in a while ya’ dolt.

        6. avatar neiowa says:

          Obumer let in is NOT the same as legal. Not citizen then you’re not shit. You get the Dec of Ind. Life, Liberty, Pursuit. NOTHIG more.

          2. GO HOME and fix your hellhole.

        7. avatar kevin says:

          American Patriot: Either we are all protected by the Constitution, or none of us are. You don’t get to pick and choose.

        8. avatar Kendahl says:

          A resident alien has complied with immigration laws. He has been granted the privilege of living and working in the country indefinitely. He enjoys most, but not all, of the rights of citizens. Two examples of rights reserved to citizens are the right to vote and to hold public office. If a resident alien is accused of a crime, he has the right to a fair trial just like a citizen. The only difference is that, if he is convicted, he can expect to be deported after punishment. Federal law permits resident aliens to possess firearms. (Form 4473 has a place to enter the number on their green card.) There used to be state and local laws limiting gun possession to citizens but they have been overturned.

          Illegal aliens have made no effort to comply with immigration laws. They sneaked across the border or overstayed their visas. They have few rights. For example, no matter how long they work in the US they can never qualify for Social Security or Medicare. One right they do retain is the right to freedom from robbery and assault. An act that is a crime when committed against a citizen is still a crime when committed against an illegal alien. They also retain the right of self defense just like citizens. (That won’t keep them from being deported afterward.)

        9. avatar Hannibal says:

          Uh, yes, they do. Imagine if all the government had to do to throw you in jail for the rest of your life without trial is say “he’s not a citizen.” And how would you prove you ARE a citizen? Under your stupid interpretation you would have no right to due process of a fair hearing to contest the government! No right to an attorney. Hell, they could torture and execute you.

          I swear, some of you mouth-breathers that talk about being a ‘patriot’ are the same ones that love things like the “PATRIOT ACT” ain’t ya?

        10. avatar MaddMaxx says:

          Hannibal: No one that I’m aware of is doing “life without parole” for being in the U.S. illegally nor does any law currently in effect allow for such an absurdity.. I understand that the idea of Sovereignty is disgusting to your Progressive Liberal sensitivities, but it is prevalent throughout the world, a world in which there really are countries that will lock you up for the rest of your life without due process simply for accidentally straying across an undefined, unmarked border, especially if you happen to be an American.. As far as proving I’m a citizen, wow I don’t know, certified birth certificate, school records from grade one, military service records, SS records for over 50 years, background checks for security clearance in the Marine corps.. I not sure but I would think that most Americans Natural and Naturalized can find some kind of document to prove they are citizens.. This is not Iran, N. Korea, Russia or China yet, in spite of decades of covert activities by Progressives to get control of the population.. I do surprisingly find myself in agreement with you on on thing, the so called “Patriot Act” has got to go. That piece of crap has been abused more than a two dollar hooker on payday (no offense intended to reasonably priced hookers) and has allowed those responsible for our security to lie and use falsified “documents” to spy on, imprison and ruin the lives of American citizens just because they don’t like the man selected by the people to be POTUS.. I will quantify that in it’s pure form the Patriot Act was well intentioned but as always our esteemed lawmakers went too far and left too many blank spaces that could easily be perverted to the needs of those attempting to undermine the rule of law, the Constitution and the will of the people.

        11. avatar Ton E says:

          Rights don’t come from the government. The US Constitution simply lists our rights based off Natural Law everyone has those rights even if their home governments deny them said rights. Even border jumpers get the benefit of due process and are subject to our laws because they’re within our territory

      4. avatar Jan923 says:

        Absolutely… Illegal immigrants should absolutely NOT have the rights afforded to American Citizens that are protected by our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment… They should become legal the right way…or be DEPORTED !!!… BUILD THE WALL !!!…MAGA

        1. avatar Pax Rock says:

          Learn to read, their speaking of foreigners here legally not border jumpers. Jesus, I can’t believe you’re allowed to vote or breed.

      5. avatar Jared says:

        Of course he would. The “patriot” wants privileges for himself. It’s typical of most people.

        I’m so happy to have helped SAF get many of these laws stuck down.

    2. avatar Sian says:

      Rights aren’t granted, sport. This isn’t a Monarchy.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Sure buddy. Say that from the prison cell you will inhabit for the rest of your life if wherever orifice you get your ‘rights’ from does not align with those found by the government and court system that will throw you there.

    3. avatar A. C. says:

      If you read the article, it allows him to APPLY for a license. It doesn’t guarantee he’ll get one if he fails to meet other requirements. Nothing in here says whether or not he already owns a gun, or whether he’s been denied a gun because of other circumstances or history.

    4. avatar S.Crock says:

      I believe the right to keep and bear arms is more than a Constitutional right. It is a natural/human right. I think citizens of any country should be able to carry in any country they are visiting or living in.

    5. avatar rt66paul says:

      The original BORs says nothing about citizens vs non-citizens rights. These rights are God given, not granted by any government. Until someone gives reason he/she should be excluded from having firearms, and due process is observed, they should be able to own and carry said firearm.

    6. avatar strych9 says:

      If he’s in US jurisdiction then the Constitution applies. Or none of our laws apply because he’s not a citizen.

      So, sure an immigrant can’t have a gun because the Constitution doesn’t apply to him even within US jurisdiction, but we can’t deport charge him with ANY crime nor can we deport him… and therefore there’s no such thing as “illegal immigration” either.

    7. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

      You sound like a complete fucking idiot and you sir, are certainly no Patriot.

    8. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “granted the rights of American citizens under the Constutition.”

      A document can’t grant rights. A man can’t grant rights. A government can’t grant rights.

  3. avatar Nickel Plated says:

    Lol, I knew that “But he’s not a citizen, he doesn’t get rights” Would be the first comment as soon as I read he was a permanent alien.

    The 2A doesn’t mention the word “citizen” anywhere.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      A lot of the reflexive indignation probably comes from the fact that in places like CA where they are welcomed, illegal aliens can have *more* effective liberties & benefits than natural born citizens. It leads to a stupid, short-sighted viewpoint, where anything that hurts them is good (regardless of its impact on one’s self) and anything that benefits them is bad (regardless of whether it would also apply to one’s situation). Divide & conquer at its finest.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        That’s an interesting insight as to how people think about this.

        I suspect that in a lot of cases you’re correct. In many others the person in question is just a moron.

  4. avatar FedUp says:

    So, if you didn’t discriminate against resident aliens, and denied everybody equally, would that be OK?

    1. avatar Juice says:

      I think that might technically be considered relief in this case.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        It would, however, make the sheriff rather unpopular with the local civilian bigwigs, though; that’s why there is always some way or other (even in NYC/NJ) to get the Big People the rights they deserve, no matter how much they trample those of everyone else.

    2. avatar A. C. says:

      California is still a “may issue” state, I believe. So it may actually be OK to refuse everyone equally. But this is about whether or not a Sheriff’s office can tell you to just throw your application in the trash, not whether they must accept it and after it’s sat on someone’s desk for a while get rubber stamped “rejected.” There’s still a long, long, way to go in California to achieve actual gun rights.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        The next domino to fall is “may issue” in its entirety, though. The whole point of “may issue” is to allow the sheriff to unconstitutionally discriminate against the usual immigrants/poors/minorities when it comes to respecting this human right. Take away that discretion (which is what this case is about) and there is no longer any reason for the sheriff’s consent to be given any consideration at all; that’s what the permitting process is for.

        Obviously not where we want to end up, but it’s definitely progress. We’ve gone from “no issue” in much of the US, to mandated licensing of some sort, and it looks like arbitrary discretion/discrimination in that licensing is next on the chopping block. At that point, the mandatory licensing requirements can generally be shown to be redundant to NFA transfer restrictions (criminal backgrounds, etc) and it’s difficult to justify them as anything other than an additional burden on gun carriers; we haven’t seen court cases strike down licensing on this front, but we have seen a lot of states drop the licensing requirement willingly with “constitutional carry” bills.

  5. avatar jwm says:

    Just more reason for nationwide constitutional carry. Local pols and authority figures should go to prison for civil rights violations for denying rights to the people.

    No gun control laws means less human and civil rights violations. I have a dream.

    1. avatar MaddMaxx says:

      It’s going to take a majority in the House, a 60 seat majority in the Senate and a pro 2A in the white House to even begin to think about National Constitutional Carry…

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Nope, *one* decision, in June of next year, may collapse a massive number of unconstitutional gun laws, making constitutional carry nation-wide…

      2. avatar barnbwt says:

        Good luck with that…our last “pro-gun radical” banned an entire class of firearms from common use by fiat.

        ETA – My point is I no longer trust the electorate to vote for actual pro-gun anythings, even if they wanted to. We’ve collectively gotten too stupid to work strategies against a tyrannical government.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          The best strategy against a tyrannical government is to fight it with everything you’ve got and then put it in a cage.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      It’s a beautiful and just dream that I also share.

  6. avatar joefoam says:

    I wouldn’t care if he were a Martian. The point of the story is that gun owners got a win in CA, almost unheard of. The sheriffs dept should be ashamed of themselves for conducting themselves in this manner to begin with. Also, for all the naive folks that think that the LEOs in this country wouldn’t ignore our constitutional rights take note. It took a lawsuit to get them to recognize our rights.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Hey, I think it’d be pretty cool if he were a Martian. ACK-ACK!

      1. avatar jwm says:

        It’s not murder to play slim whitman music. It may be extremely poor taste……..

    2. avatar Louis Riinge says:

      Funny I have never heard that one, and I did that job at Riverside from 1997-20004

      1. avatar Henry J. Braud says:

        Wow Lou, 20004? To live that long you must be a vampire!!! :o)

  7. avatar Tom Caise says:

    The Amendments don’t give Rights, they simply protect the Inalienable rights we already have as human beings. Such is the one, of so called, separation between church & state. Which has been misconstrued, totally taken out of context, and God has no place in government. That’s not what it’s about at all. Wake-up America!

    1. avatar MaddMaxx says:

      Religious freedom has been jacked sideways by a bunch of fringe groups and the current “misinterpretation” was previously established by a liberal Supreme Court and has not been properly challenged since.. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof. Pretty simple Congress cannot start a church, establish a national religion or tell anyone how or what to worship and there’s nothing about praying in school or displaying the ten commandments in the local courthouse… So how can you screw that around til no one can mention God in any govt. building in the U.S.

      1. avatar Tom Caise says:

        I agree Maxx, but people have. Nothing wrong w/God in Government, as long as Government doesn’t try to be God. I know this is off topic, but using it as a another example of how people read things into something, that IS NOT THERE.

    2. avatar Chris says:

      There is no separation of church and state in the constitution. We learned that during our first week of class in journalism 101. They teach this in a lot of classes, english 101 is another. I don’t know why people keep repeating this, in 2019, when you can google anything you can think of. So, less assuming, more reading. Reading is fundamental.

      1. avatar MaddMaxx says:

        It’s the same people that continue to call the U.S. a “Democracy” it’s what many of them were taught and had embedded in their brains for years..

  8. avatar Sam I Am says:

    How ’bout this…..

    What does it matter? Except for creating the basis for appeal?

    What we have is a system that provides all the justice you can afford. When you run out of money, you run out of justice. Just at the federal level: win, and the verdict is appealed. Next level of federal review: win and the verdict is appealed. Next level of federal review, and the verdict is appealed. Finally, you hope the SC will hear your case.

    How many levels is that? Why do any lower court verdicts matter? They can all be appealed if….

    IF the other side has money.

    They can all be appealed if…

    IF you have money.

    Justice is for sale. Right, wrong, upside down. None of that matters, only how much justice you can afford.

    And then there is Judge Judy. (representing all small claims courts). The verdict is not final. And sometimes, you are booted from small claims because the other side is smarter than you. Here is are two examples that may be instructive:
    First case –
    1. customer takes electronics repair company to small claims court
    2. customer receives favorable $800 judgement
    3. electronics repair company refuses to pay
    4. customer spends several months trying to get repair company to pay
    5. customer contacts clerk of court about failure of repair company to pay
    6. clerk of court instructs customer hire attorney and file for enforcement order
    7. judge of small claims court issues enforcement order
    8. repair company refused to accept service of enforcement order from customer
    9. customer is instructed by clerk of court to file for order from judge to sheriff to enforce order to pay
    10. sheriff puts order at lowest enforcement priority
    11. after a18mos, customer abandons enforcement attempts

    Second case –
    1. Citizen files for judgement in small claims court (contractor failed to repair ancillary damage caused by contractor laborers)
    2. Citizen and contractor appear in court
    3. Contractor attorney requests case be elevated to District Court
    4. Small claims judge grants Contractor request
    5. Individual must hire attorney in order to sue in District Court
    6. Contractor is granted eight extension of trial dates
    7. Citizen runs out of money paying attorney fees for District Court appearances that resulted in changes of trial dates

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yep. It’s a mess.

  9. avatar Steve says:

    The one bright spot on my ballot in Riverside County in the last election was the win of Chad Bianco as Sheriff (lefties won all the rest). Bianco’s predecessor paid lip service to the 2A at election time then carried on is “May Issue” foot-dragging with lots of caveats and obfuscation. Though CA as a (commie run) state has a May Issue policy, Chad Bianco’s policy is Shall Issue if the typical good character measures are met. We in Riverside County are having a wind of refreshing freedom blow through our areas. I’ve already seen the old methods blown out and positive change happening.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      “if the typical good character measures are met”

      What does that mean? How/why is it any different from the licensing standards (which are put into place for the same ostensible reason)?

      I suspect he’s a lot less “shall issue” than you may suspect; otherwise I don’t see how he’d have room to exercise discretion at all…in which case you’d think he would make a show of having a “shall issue” policy to get more credit with the pro-gun set.

  10. avatar S.Crock says:

    This is great and all but those poor souls in LA county still aren’t allowed to carry. CA is a disgrace.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Some time ago some one here mentioned, if person living in LA county live close to a bordering county that does issuse CCW, try to relocate to that county. Ventura Co (to the northwest), Kern Co (north) and Orange Co (south), do issue CCW. But traffic sucks enough in SoCal.

  11. avatar OBOB says:

    Let my guess on how long it takes this to MUTATE in cali to Illegal aliens having the right to get a gun too!

    as of now they can drive without a license or and insurance and if pulled over…call a buddy who has both and leave!
    if you are a legal citizen in the same situation?
    your car is impounded and you go to JAIL!

    Lets not even talk about voting…they don’t even check ID in the state!

  12. avatar borg says:

    The policy is clearly discrimination on the basis of national origin in violation of federal law as well as constitutional law. It is good to see such a discrimination is no longer being tolerated by the courts.

  13. avatar WhiteDevil says:

    Stop applying for a concealed carry permit when the 2A guarantees the right to bear arms.

  14. avatar Bruce A Frank says:

    I am going to say this, but it will not likely change anyone’s mind about anything. 30 years ago knew a British immigrant who came to the US to work for a computer company. He was not eligible to apply for US citizenship because of the limits on his employment visa, but he could legally buy a gun and eventually obtained a CCW in PA.

  15. avatar B.D. says:

    I was denied CCW in CA. About damn time someone checked this state. Usually, I say fuck the fed but when it comes to states like CA who are basically not even part of America anymore, fuck them more.

  16. avatar Dan says:

    This ruling isn’t going to change the ugly reality that CCW permits in So. Cal are rarer than hens teeth.
    .The ruling forces the Riverside county sheriff to ACCEPT applications for a CCW from a non citizen here
    legally. What it DOES NOT DO is force said sheriff to approve the application. Kali is a “MAY ISSUE” state and aside from remote places like Modoc County etc. the chances of having a CCW approved by a sheriff are roughly akin to the chances of winning the SuperLotto jackpot……unless of course you have “connections”……or donate beau coup bucks to said sheriff and his election campaign.

    1. avatar son of alan says:

      It all depends on the county. Ventura is now issuing in less than 6 mos. With self defense as a reason (good cause).

      https://www.friedmanhandguntraining.com/images/CCW_map_large.jpg

      1. avatar Dan says:

        Hard numbers please…..number of permits issued as a percentage of population and number of applications approved versus number of applications denied. I suspect the numbers will show that Ventura may be tiny bit better than some other counties but the difference is akin to having your handcuffs on too tight vs having them on at a bearable tightness.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    Under Graham v. Richardson, “alienage” is a suspect classification, and state laws that discriminate against legal aliens are subject to strict scrutiny.

    Strict scrutiny means that the government must prove that the law is necessary to a “compelling state interest,” is “narrowly tailored,” and that the law uses the “least restrictive means” to achieve the compelling purpose.

    It’s a high bar. Not many laws can survive strict scrutiny.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email